Building blocks

by Dr. Robert Zuber, Global Action to Prevent War

The general exchange of views at this years’ UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) put on display a mixture of post-Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiating fatigue, a bit of bellicose rhetoric, and a certain resignation that outcomes for this year’s substantive session were unlikely to be more noteworthy than previous years.
 
One of the two substantive agenda items for this UNDC session is confidence-building measures (CBM) in the field of conventional arms. Such weapons, of course, were the focus of the recently concluded ATT process, a process which laid bare some of the deep divisions that continue to exist among exporting and importing states. While diplomats generally avoid using terms like ‘trust,’ they do acknowledge that the inability to bind states to obligations in areas that potentially threaten their security and sovereignty represents a major hurdle to full confidence in disarmament deliberations—and sometimes to confidence in each other as well.

Indeed, the more hostile the rhetoric, and Wednesday’s debate showcased harsh words from several States including Moldova and particularly the DPRK, the greater the challenges for trust building. In settings such as the UNDC, preserving and expanding trust tend to take a back seat to expressions of national interest, at times spoken with forcefulness beyond what is actually needed to make a political point.

The European Union has distributed a working paper on “Practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons.” The paper contains a number of important challenges as well as reservations for states seeking the lofty goals associated with the pursuit of CBMs. Nevertheless, many of the recommendations are both psychologically sound and consistent with UN practice—information sharing, transparency, verification and dialogue. What is most welcome is that emphasis on practical measures—urging states to do what they have essentially already promised to do in the disarmament field as a major investment in confidence building. Moreover, there is an affirmation of the role of ‘good governance and the rule of law’ in confidence building, reinforcing that states standing under the law rather than above it tend to make more reliable neighbors.

But there is another aspect to confidence-building, which has to do with ensuring that necessary skills and levels of representation are both sufficiently accounted for. In its plenary statement, the Swiss delegation made a suggestion that we feel has considerable merit in this regard:

“The UNDC should reflect on the possibility of opening its deliberations to exchanges with representatives of the Secretariat, academia and civil society. Greater interaction with these players could help breathe new life into the efforts of this forum and enable it to take into consideration all of the preoccupations linked to disarmament.”

Although this seems like a straightforward plea for more capacity assistance, in the context of the UNDC, it is almost revolutionary. For the past several years, civil society interest in the UNDC has consisted almost exclusively of representatives from Reaching Critical Will and Global Action to Prevent War and Armed Conflict. Despite the important deliberative role with which the UNDC is entrusted, even civil society organizations familiar to UNDC delegations feel neither invited nor motivated to sit silently over the long and often redundant discussions taking place in those chambers over several weeks.

GAPW would like to do more to help the UNDC achieve its objectives. We would like to do more to encourage other experts from diverse global regions to enrich the deliberations as well.

The UNDC diplomats are smart and committed people. But the process is long, meandering, and often frustrating. And this year, above all, most of the diplomats are really tired. The disarmament agenda is packed now and has recently been dominated by a process (ATT negotiations) that has only the most tangential relationship to actual disarmament. If for no other reason, the infusion of other ideas and perspectives from civil society could certainly help to elevate discussions and stimulate more diplomatic attentiveness to the distinct deliberative space which the UNDC occupies. It is time to give the Swiss proposal a careful look.

Part of confidence-building involves transparency, fidelity to commitments, and open dialogue by states. But part of it might also be related to having trustworthy resources in the room to help stimulate the deliberative process, a process which the rest of the disarmament machinery desperately needs the UNDC to discharge with energy and competence. Opening UNDC space to civil society experts might be a key to addressing the challenge of lagging energy. At the very least, such an opening might also help to inspire confidence as well as build it.